ORGANISED DOCTORS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18049, 24 September 1920, Page 5

ORGANISED DOCTORS

DISCUSSION IN PARLIAMENT,

(Fbom Oue Own Correspondent.) „ . WELLINGTON, September 22. j-ho aftair s of the British Medical Association were discussed in tho llouso of ivcprescntatives this afternoon. Dr II C I'auiiie, of Wellington, had petitioned tho House asking: (1) That provision should lo mado during the present session for the "glit of appeal by a nicdical practitioner to t.io Supreme Court against tho decisions ot tlie British Medical Association's New Zealand branch; and (2) that legislation should be introduced making illegal tlie boycotting of a medical practitioner who was not a member of tlio association, but who was on the medical roll by the members of the association. The A to L Petitions Committeo recommended the first clause of this petition for the favourable consideration of the Government. The chairman of tho committee (Mr Wright) said that Dr Faulko had been a member of tlie association. There had been some difference of opinion between Dr laulko and the association, and he had been cuarged by tho executive of tho association witu unprofessional conduct. lie had denied that charge, and eventually was expelled from tho association. After lie had ooen expelled hj was ostracised. Other doctors would not work with him, except in extreme cases where life and death were involved. The doctor was asking now that in his case, and similar cases, the medical practitioner who was expelled from tho association should have a right of appeal to tho Supreme Court. There was no right of appeal at present, owing to the iact that tho British Mcdical Association was an unregistered body, and tnerefore could not be proceeded against at law. If tho association were registered aggrieved persons would bo ablo to appeal to tho courts. Tho committee had been informed that jn Great Britain tho right of appeal in such cases e'xisted. Tho petition, added Mr Wright., involved tho status of certain doctors vHio had been impbrted from Great Britain by the friendly societies. These doctors were doing the work of the societies, and they had been placed under the ban by tho Medical Association. They would havo a r ght of appeal under the recommendation of the committee. The members of the committee had not considered it necessary to deal with the second of the petition, smce a remedy would be provided if the right of appeal to tho Supremo Court existed. Air A. Harris (Waitemata) supported the recommendation of tlio committee. It was felt,, lie said, that tho British Medical Assoelation was a close corporation, which bad not given fair treatment to fully qualified I doctors outside the organisation. Tho doctors within the association refused to consult the doctors who were outside. Mr F. N. Bartram (Grey Lynn) said that the position was rather serious from the point of view of tho public. The organised doctors wero at variance with non-unionists and the public interest sufterod. The difficulty was an argument in favour of the nationalisation of the medical service. Speaking from a union standpoint, lie had to congratulate the members of tho British Medical Association on their exhibition of Ca<iss consciousness a.nd union solidarity" The committeo had been told that tho doctors imported by tho friendly societies wero really "scabbing" on the Medical Union. The evidence put before tlie committee had shown that tho British IVlodical Association was trying to induce . these doctors to break their agreement. Dr Gibb had told tho committeo that if contracts were made without full knowledge of the facts repudiation was justifiable. - Mr Wright: Ho scarcely went as far as that. Mr Bartram: I think ho did. Mi' -P. Eraser. (Wellington Central) said that tho Medical Association "was a union that had gone further than other unions in tho protection of its members. It claimed the right to expel and boycott members, and these members ought to have tho same right that other had to appeal to tho courts, if an mjxistice had been done. The British Medical Association had made certain definitions of ethical conduct. it had dismissed a proposal that a member should be deemed to be guilty of unethical conduct if he appeared in a civil court as a witness "in conjunction with a member of the medical profession, whom the association ■ considers unethical to meet professionally." Mr J. S. Diokson (Parnell) declared that in Auckland tho organised doctors had threatened to withdraw their cases from maternity homes if _ doctors outside the British Medical Association were allowed to attend patients in tho same homes. Tho doctors had given an example of the "One Big Union."